Republicans blast health bill

Saturday 21st November, 05:53 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 78 Total Comments Show All

LFRAgain at 03:44 PM JST - 23rd November

victimcrat,

Following your half-baked logic, if Texas' 46th place ranking is skewered by 1.7 million ilegal aliens, then does California's 31st place ranking in the same poll with 2.9 million illegal aliens mean that more illegals is better for healthcare systems?

Care to try again?
victimcrat at 06:09 PM JST - 23rd November

@LFRagain

Following your half-baked logic, if Texas' 46th place ranking is skewered by 1.7 million ilegal aliens, then does California's 31st place ranking in the same poll with 2.9 million illegal aliens mean that more illegals is better for healthcare systems?

You infer a bit much there. I asked for some estimate about how the illegal alien population skewers stats and rankings. I believe the Commonweathfund organization providing the stats and rankings leans left and includes illegals in its surveys.

I think anyone genuinely interested in better health care for American citizens would be able to come here with a picture of how much better health care could be in Texas and California,not to mention elsewhere, if the effect of millions of illegals abusing the system is factored in. Like tort reform it needs addressing.
LFRAgain at 09:03 PM JST - 23rd November

victimcrat,

I'm only going off of your suggestion that the Commonweathfund's study is inaccurate because of its supposed inclusion of illegal aliens in the final calculations.

"I believe the Commonweathfund organization providing the stats and rankings leans left and includes illegals in its surveys."

Regardless of how you believe Commonweathfund came to its conclusions and whether or not illegals were included in the calculations, it's fair to assume that even if they were included in the calculations, they were counted in both the Texas and the California numbers. That seems like a reasonable assumption.

If we can agree on that, then it also seems fairly clear that the data shows that California with almost twice the number of illegal aliens still ranks higher in healthcare quality than Texas with nearly half the number of illegals. Which makes your claim of dishonest data manipulation untrue -- or at the very least, unprovable.

Unless you suspect that Commonweathfund purposely chose to skew the data by including illegals in Texas' calculations and not in California's, in order to produce either a more negative picture of Texas or a more positive one of California? Left or right, I find that highly unlikely.

If you want to talk about the effect illegals have on the healthcare system, then you must also be willing to acknowledge that illegals use the healthcare system with about the same frequency or less than uninsured Americans, or more specifically, only when it’s an emergency. And unlike uninsured Americans, illegals are even less inclined to use the system, even in cases of emergency, due to the risks involved in being discovered as an undocumented alien.

No, I’m not saying that risk stops all of them from visiting hospital emergency rooms, even in cases of dire emergency, but it most certainly stops many of them.

Even if they do use the system, their numbers don’t compare to the U.S. Census-confirmed over 40 million Americans -- more than twice even the highest estimate of the number of illegal aliens currently in the U.S. -- without healthcare who would have a far greater impact on the cost of healthcare through possible use of emergency treatment than the fraction of illegal aliens who might be using the same services.

Want to take a bite out of healthcare costs? Provided basic preventative healthcare to all Americans, thus catching minor illnesses before they become major ones, thereby minimizing the need for those too-little-too-late-too-expensive emergency room visits that are costing hospitals millions of dollars every year and pushing the costs of basic healthcare higher.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Molenir at 01:04 AM JST - 24th November

LFRAgain - I'll say if no one else will. Taka's provided links supporting his claim that healthcare in Texas is a mess despite successes in torn reform. You provided what you called "competing links" that talked about Obama's populatiry. How the two are even remotely related is beyond me, and probably beyond Taka as well

Wow, you're apparently not very good at reading. Go back up and read what I wrote, and what Taka wrote, I'm sure it will become clear. He at least had no problem understanding what I was referencing. For the reading impaired, I was responding to both of Takas posts above. One in which he talked about Texas and Tort reform, please go ahead and go back up to see my responses to that, and also Taka took exception to the statement that Obamas poll numbers are falling. I then provided links to several polls one showing Obama at 45%, another at 50%. Checking it today, he is now down to 48% in the second poll.

Getting back to the previous topic, and how you're complaining that I'm not giving you the numbers. Just follow the link Taka provided, and look at the numbers. Thats what I did. According to the data provided on that site, 70% of adults, and 80% of children in Texas are covered by health care. When you take into account the high number of illegals living in Texas, that is an amazing figure.

In the meantime, my post about the lack of Republican alternatives for a comprehensive healthcare reform bill isn't meant to strictly point out the evils of tort reform.

When I saw you had written this, I have to seriously question if you bothered to read anything in this thread. Republicans have proposed MANY alternatives, including their own plan, one that would actually cut costs, unlike what the Dems are planning to do.

I already previously posted quite a bit about Tort Reform and how you would have to be an idiot not to immediately see the benefits to it. Well, and idiot or a Democrat, though sometimes its hard to tell the difference.
LFRAgain at 05:35 PM JST - 24th November

Molenir,

Wow. Apparently you aren't very good at constructing a coherent paragraph, choosing instead to bounce all over the canvas, thus causing what was simply a misunderstanding. My apologies for not recognizing earlier your attention deficit approach to discussion.

Regardless, if the best effort you can make to sum up your position involves calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot, then it's really no wonder this bill passage has been an uphill battle. It's hard to work with that kind of arrogance, regardless of what the bill contains.

And no, Republicans have not offered "many" solutions. They've stuck to the same guns they always have: "Without tort reform, there's no deal." Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Molenir at 03:43 AM JST - 25th November

Wow. Apparently you aren't very good at constructing a coherent paragraph, choosing instead to bounce all over the canvas, thus causing what was simply a misunderstanding. My apologies for not recognizing earlier your attention deficit approach to discussion.

Ah, glad to help you figure things out. It really wasn't that hard to understand the discussion, if you had merely taken the time to read the previous posts. Instead you chose to jump in and accuse me of not providing appropriate links. Now your response is to criticize me for incoherence, rather then acknowledging your previous error. I do admit my response could have been a bit better constructed. It was late, and I was writing in a hurry. I do note however that you didn't choose to address the issues Taka and I were discussing, which you previously took exception to.

And no, Republicans have not offered "many" solutions. They've stuck to the same guns they always have: "Without tort reform, there's no deal." Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Again, why not actually take the time to read the plan that Republicans put forward, rather then just making these blanket statements. I guess thats just too much trouble. Too much reading. I understand. Suffice it to say, that unlike the Democrats plan, the plan they put forward would actually lower health care costs, without the government takeover. They include some of the Democrats ideas as well, but since I suspect nothing I say would convince you, I don't see the point in elaborating. As you said, Denial is not a river in Egypt.
LFRAgain at 12:05 AM JST - 26th November

Molenir,

" . . . why not actually take the time to read the plan that Republicans"

Since we're on the subject of not reading the thread, you might want to heed your own advice. I did read up on the Republican plan and posted my impression of it at 01:33 PM JST - 22nd November with an L.A. Times synopsis of what the Republican proposal entailed and what the Congressional Budget Office found after crunching its numbers. Yes, it’s cheaper. Way cheaper.

But what do we get for the savings? In short, the Republican plan goes out of its way to avoid anything even remotely suggesting society take care of its own, and only seeks to address lowering costs incrementally over the next 10 years in ways that don't significantly ensure that 40 million uninsured Americans will have access to affordable healthcare. It also manages to knock a few senior citizens off the Medicare rolls.

I'll repost this part again:

"The GOP bill is an amalgam of market-oriented measures that would limit medical malpractice lawsuits, expand the use of tax-sheltered medical savings accounts, let people shop for insurance outside of their own states, and make it easier for small businesses and hard-to-insure people to get coverage. The ideas reflect conservatives' suspicion of sweeping new programs, federal spending and additional regulation."

As to this supposed inclusion of Democrat ideas, including rooting out waste in Medicare, I just can't help but notice the one glaring omission from all of the Republican plans: Universal Healthcare. Hmm . . .

Yet each plan does include a veritable cookie-cutter presentation of the core Republican campaign trail platform from the past 30 years: Lower taxes, health insurance savings accounts, and -- surprise, surprise -- caps on malpractice lawsuits. That one is in every single Republican proposal laid out since heathcare reform was put on the table. But, as you so eloqently put it, "since I suspect nothing I say would convince you, I don't see the point in elaborating."

And you wonder why no one takes the Republican proposals seriously? The Republicans themselves clearly don't, so why should anyone else?
Molenir at 01:32 AM JST - 26th November

LFRAgain - I'm impressed. You actually took the time to read the Republican proposal, or at least the synopsis of what they proposed. When you posted your comment, did you consider what I said about it. That it included some Democratic ideas, and cut costs, without the government takeover of health care. So you're right, no Universal Health Care. Merely the same great health care system we've had for years, that produces innovation, and new technology, but with lower costs, allowing more people to have access to insurance. Unlike the Democrats plan, it won't result in sky high bills to the US taxpayer, it won't result in the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, nor in rationed care, as there aren't enough doctors to suddenly meet demand. No it won't mean everyone suddenly has coverage, but then, neither does the Dems plan. No, what the Republicans proposed was a good idea. In fact its the best idea put forward. Rather sad that the Dems just decided to ignore it, because of the source.
SebastianFlyte at 12:46 PM JST - 26th November

Those "republicans" have ruined the USA. It'll never be the same again.
SebastianFlyte at 12:48 PM JST - 26th November

Molenir: How come the republicans didn't have a "plan" before. Why now, suddenly??
Molenir at 01:57 PM JST - 26th November

Molenir: How come the republicans didn't have a "plan" before. Why now, suddenly??

Define suddenly, they came out with this months ago. And its standard procedure for parties, when bills are up for debate, to put competing ideas up, in order to get their own ideas included in the debate, and possibly adopted. When Dems are in control, Republicans put up competing plans, when Republicans were in control, the Dems did the same thing. Every major policy debate that happens before congress, has a competing plan. Sometimes ideas from those plans actually get adopted into the bill. Other times, when 1 party has complete control, those ideas get ignored as is whats happening now.
LFRAgain at 07:01 PM JST - 26th November

Molenir,

"Rather sad that the Dems just decided to ignore it, because of the source."

That's an inaccurate assessment. Dems have largely ignored the proposals because they see them as perpetuating "the same great health care system we've had for years," a health system that has been, by most accounts, failing America -- unless you're well-insured.

And even then, the best-insured are still paying for the failures of the current system via taxes that cover the costs of the emergency care that public hospitals are legally required to provide to the uninsured. It's a vicious cycle.

In the meantime, this "great" healthcare system of ours essentially reserves access to innovation and new technologies to the "Haves," while maitaining an insurmountable barrier to the "Have nots," and no market reforms, tax rebates, or "insurance savings accounts" are ever going to address the fundamental problem of Americans who have no money to begin with for savings of any sort, much less the health-insurance account variety.

Republicans might be heartened to know that many uninsured Americans already have a healthcare savings account of sorts, although it might might not be immediately recognizable. We all know it better as the cookie jar in the kitchen or the coffee can under the bed. That's how uninsured Americans have been preparing themselves for unexpected illnesses for far too long. And it has to stop.

As long as affordable health care is out of the reach of the poorest Americans, no measure put forth by Republicans or Democrats will ever erase the massive costs incurred by allowing the "Have Nots" to stew in illnesses that, while once easily and cheaply treatable, inevitably balloon into unmanageable problems requiring expensive emergency care.

There's nothing great or laudable about a system that allows this situation to persist in the wealthiest nation on the planet.
Molenir at 03:40 AM JST - 27th November

That's an inaccurate assessment. Dems have largely ignored the proposals because they see them as perpetuating "the same great health care system we've had for years," a health system that has been, by most accounts, failing America -- unless you're well-insured.

No, lets be honest here. I said they were being ignored because of the source. This is frankly, not true. There is an element of that, and it was easier to write, then to put throw out the real reason. The real reason that they're not including tort reform, is that the Democrats are in the pocket of the Trial lawyers. They are like the unions, big money for the Democrats, and they don't want to alienate the trial lawyers.

The rest of what you said is really what the debate is all about. Whether or not its better to let some people do without, in order that more people have better health care. Its really an ethical and moral dilemma, as no one wants to say, no, you can't have good health care because you're too poor. The Republican plan would open it up to more people, bringing down costs, allowing more people to be covered. The Democratic plan ramps up the costs, relying on debt, and the wealthy to make up the difference. In its current form, it also means the government is seizing control of 1/5th the US economy, and trying to do it at a time when there is more debt then there has ever been, and the economy is in the worst shape its been in 80 years. No, ethical and moral dilemma aside, the plain truth of the matter is, that we simply cannot afford it.
LFRAgain at 05:53 PM JST - 27th November

"The real reason that they're not including tort reform, is that the Democrats are in the pocket of the Trial lawyers."

But that too, is presumption. If we wanted to go tit-for-tat, then I could just as easily say that the real reason Republicans oppose government oversight of the insurance industry is because they are in the pockets of insurance the insurance companies. I'm pretty sure you hold your opinion on this with as much conviction as I do mine, but ultimately, both are unprovable.

I think you've nailed down precisely why this has been such a thorny issue for so many people. It tweaks everyone's moral center, Republican and Democrat alike, and forces us to think about some rather unpleasant realities and uncomfortable choices.

I can't disagree with you that the cost of the Democrat plan is high. But by the same token, I can't wrap my brain around how Republicans can flatly refuse to spend public funds on a measure that will help real Americans both now and in the future, yet don't bat an eye at pouring billions of dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow, Republicans would have me believe that helping foreign nations takes precedent over making sure our own house is in order, something that makes very little sense.

While we are indeed in the midst of one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression, I have to ask, if we don’t address the healthcare problems in this country now, then when exactly? When the economy gets better? When we recover from our financial loses in the Middle East?

During the Clinton Administration, the world economy was as robust as it’s ever been, with the United States enjoying unparalleled budget surpluses. And yet, even under those ideal circumstances, Republicans still vigorously opposed universal healthcare proposals. As Republicans would tell us today, their opposition is primarily about money. But historically, that hasn’t been exactly true. When money wasn’t even an issue, Republican threw up virtually the exact same arguments against Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan -- minus the money part -- including complaints about excessive government involvement in the healthcare industry, the elimination of personal healthcare choices, and yes, accusations of Socialism. In the end, it all still comes back around to issues entirely unrelated to money -- and I'd like to see some honesty about this.

In truth, I’d really like to see Republicans drop their wailing about “saddling our children with crippling debt” altogether. That ship already sailed the minute we set foot in Iraq in 2001 to wage a war funded for the first time ever, mind you, with borrowed funds. Universal Healthcare is an expense that is infinitely more justifiable than the Iraq War ever was or will be.
KobeKid at 07:31 PM JST - 27th November

n truth, I’d really like to see Republicans drop their wailing about “saddling our children with crippling debt” altogether. That ship already sailed the minute we set foot in Iraq in 2001 to wage a war funded for the first time ever, mind you, with borrowed funds. Universal Healthcare is an expense that is infinitely more justifiable than the Iraq War ever was or will be.

and don't forget the 1 trillion dollar unfunded Medicare drug benefit, brought to you by Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney and company.